Your perimeter can be perfect
and still be walked through.
Most breaches start with a credential, not an exploit. GuardianGaze finds the corporate credentials already circulating in breach data, attributes them to your domains, and tells you which identity to reset.
Matched by domain. No staff list required.
Attribution, not a headline
“Your data was in a breach” is not actionable. A named identity, the evidence, and a reset instruction is.
Leaked credentials, attributed
Corporate addresses appearing in breach data, matched back to your domains so you know whose account to reset rather than that “a breach happened”.
Impersonation and crisis signals
AI brand-mention intelligence across web and social surfaces sentiment shifts, impersonation attempts and early crisis signals against your name.
Analyst-verified indicators
Indicators are checked before they reach you. The output is a short list you can act on, not an alert queue that trains people to ignore it.
What is monitored
- Corporate credentials in breach and combo data, matched to your domains
- Brand mentions across web and social, with sentiment
- Impersonation attempts and early crisis signals
- Typosquat and lookalike domains registered against your brand
- WHOIS and abuse intelligence on hostile registrations
What arrives on a finding
- Severity, with the evidence that produced it
- 5W reasoning: what, why, where, who and impact
- Remediation and an SLA for the fix
- The compliance control the exposure breaks
- MITRE ATT&CK tactic and technique mapping
Exposure findings arrive with severity, evidence and an owner
Common questions
What counts as “dark web” exposure here?
Primarily credential exposure: corporate email addresses and associated credentials appearing in breach and combo data, attributed back to the domains you own. It is paired with brand-mention intelligence across the open web and social platforms.
Do you need a list of our employees?
No. Exposure is matched by domain, so the assessment starts from the same information an attacker would use. You do not need to upload a staff directory.
What do we do with a credential finding?
Each finding carries the evidence, the affected identity, severity and remediation, with an SLA attached. In practice that is a forced reset plus a check for reuse against your own perimeter, which the other modules assess in the same report.
Is this monitored continuously?
Yes. Continuous monitoring with on-demand rescans, so newly published breach data is reflected without waiting for the next review cycle.
Breach data attribution, not a tour of criminal forums
Dark web monitoring is a term that invites theatre, so it is worth being precise about the mechanism. The valuable signal is credentials belonging to your domains appearing in breach corpora and combolists, data that has been aggregated, traded and eventually circulated widely.
The work is not access. It is attribution and freshness: establishing that a credential genuinely belongs to your organisation rather than a coincidental match, and distinguishing a new exposure from a ten-year-old breach recirculating for the fifth time. Most alerting in this category fails on the second, which is why teams stop reading it.
So findings are attributed to your domains, dated, and rated by whether the credential is plausibly still live. An alert about a 2013 breach your staff have long since rotated past is noise, and treating it as a finding trains people to ignore the feed.
Exposure often precedes disclosure
Corporate credentials appearing in circulation is frequently the first externally observable sign that something has gone wrong somewhere in the chain: at a supplier, in a SaaS tool a team signed up for independently, or on a staff member's personal account that reuses a work password.
It commonly precedes any public disclosure by weeks, because the organisation that was breached often does not know yet, and when they do know, disclosure takes time. That gap is where the value sits: rotating a credential before it is used is inexpensive, and doing it afterwards is incident response.
For vendor assessment the same signal reads differently. Credentials attributable to a supplier appearing in recent breach data is one of the strongest available indicators that their security posture merits a closer look, and it is not something a questionnaire would ever surface.
Rotation, then the question of why
The immediate action is obvious: rotate the credential, and check whether it was reused anywhere else. That is usually where response stops, and it should not be.
The more valuable question is how it got there. A single credential in a combolist is often personal password reuse. A cluster of credentials from the same domain appearing together suggests a compromise at a specific service, and identifying which service is what stops the same thing happening again next quarter.
Brand impersonation and crisis signals are monitored alongside, because they tend to cluster. Impersonation infrastructure being registered while credentials circulate is a stronger combined signal than either alone, and it usually means preparation rather than opportunism.
Find out what is already circulating
Credential exposure is assessed alongside the other five modules, so you get the perimeter and the people in the same report.
Free for your own organisation.